[quote name="Russell" url="/t/158444/apples-loss-in-e-book-antitrust-case-likely-to-give-advantage-to-amazon/40#post_2360633"]For all of you apple cry babies.....[/QUOTE]
Thanks. Those links help as much as your signature is in any way true. :no:
Selling below cost is not illegal. Predatory pricing is. The difference is abuse of monopoly power - which is what Amazon is doing.
The only problem with your logic is that most favored nation clauses are fully legal. Jobs was simply telling Mossberg that they were going to have a MFN clause.
No, the ruling tells Amazon that it's OK to abuse their monopoly power - and prices have already started going up since the ruling.
Well, no. The judge's comments were ignored because she is a biased idiot. She made her decision before the trial - and simply repeated the same assumptions she made earlier.
Read her opinion from end to end. It's not biased and she's no idiot. You, on the other hand, errs on the opposite side of any legal decision against Apple. Who's biased?
It's silly to castigate the decision just because you believe it will favor Amazon. The judge had to formulate her ruling on Apple regardless of how it affects the rest of the industry. If she found Apple to have broken the law, she had to rule thus even if the consequence is WWIII. Her opinion is balanced and takes into account many aspects of the case. You clearly have not read it or you'd know that she wrote good things about Apple too. In fact, it's a fascinating chronicle of what happened. So how could you possibly opine rationally on her ruling? Don't you care whether your comments appear at least somewhat fair and well thought out? Or are you happy being a ranting fanboy and de facto troll?
Take my advice, inform yourself before ranting. I realize you're disadvantaged because you're not trained in legal or technical aspects of this industry. But if you want to make yourself front and centre in a tech forum, speaking before bring informed is like entering a war zone unarmed.
Read her opinion from end to end. It's not biased and she's no idiot. You, on the other hand, errs on the opposite side of any legal decision against Apple. Who's biased?
It's silly to castigate the decision just because you believe it will favor Amazon. The judge had to formulate her ruling on Apple regardless of how it affects the rest of the industry. If she found Apple to have broken the law, she had to rule thus even if the consequence is WWIII. Her opinion is balanced and takes into account many aspects of the case. You clearly have not read it or you'd know that she wrote good things about Apple too. In fact, it's a fascinating chronicle of what happened. So how could you possibly opine rationally on her ruling? Don't you care whether your comments appear at least somewhat fair and well thought out? Or are you happy being a ranting fanboy and de facto troll?
Take my advice, inform yourself before ranting. I realize you're disadvantaged because you're not trained in legal or technical aspects of this industry. But if you want to make yourself front and centre in a tech forum, speaking before bring informed is like entering a war zone unarmed.
Where is the bias?
A representative of Barnes and Noble testified that they were in talks with the publishers to move to an agency model, long before Apple decided to enter the eBook market.
She ignored this and continued with her fantasy that this was all Apple's idea.
Now sit back and wait for her ruling, most of which was pre-written before the trial even started, to be torn apart on appeal.
"According to legal scholars, Judge Cote’s decision was heavily based on facts, and laws were meticulously applied, which is difficult to challenge in an appellate court."
Comments
Thanks. Those links help as much as your signature is in any way true. :no:
Read her opinion from end to end. It's not biased and she's no idiot. You, on the other hand, errs on the opposite side of any legal decision against Apple. Who's biased?
It's silly to castigate the decision just because you believe it will favor Amazon. The judge had to formulate her ruling on Apple regardless of how it affects the rest of the industry. If she found Apple to have broken the law, she had to rule thus even if the consequence is WWIII. Her opinion is balanced and takes into account many aspects of the case. You clearly have not read it or you'd know that she wrote good things about Apple too. In fact, it's a fascinating chronicle of what happened. So how could you possibly opine rationally on her ruling? Don't you care whether your comments appear at least somewhat fair and well thought out? Or are you happy being a ranting fanboy and de facto troll?
Take my advice, inform yourself before ranting. I realize you're disadvantaged because you're not trained in legal or technical aspects of this industry. But if you want to make yourself front and centre in a tech forum, speaking before bring informed is like entering a war zone unarmed.
Where is the bias?
A representative of Barnes and Noble testified that they were in talks with the publishers to move to an agency model, long before Apple decided to enter the eBook market.
She ignored this and continued with her fantasy that this was all Apple's idea.
Now sit back and wait for her ruling, most of which was pre-written before the trial even started, to be torn apart on appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Now sit back and wait for her ruling, most of which was pre-written before the trial even started, to be torn apart on appeal.
Not according to this AI news article:
Apple Has Slim Chance On E-Book Appeal: Legal Experts
"According to legal scholars, Judge Cote’s decision was heavily based on facts, and laws were meticulously applied, which is difficult to challenge in an appellate court."